The Supreme Court of India has acquitted Ramu Appa Mahapatar, overturning his conviction for the murder of Manda. Previously sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC, Mahapatar has now been granted the benefit of doubt due to unreliable extra-judicial confessions and weak circumstantial evidence.

Case Background

Ramu Appa Mahapatar and the deceased, Manda, were in a live-in relationship in a chawl owned by PW-1 (landlord Ravinder Gopal Jadhav). The prosecution alleged that Mahapatar killed Manda after an argument.

Read Also:- Supreme Court: Meticulous Examination Needed in Cases Where FIR Was Against Unknown Persons

The Sessions Court convicted him in 2004, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. This conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court in 2010. However, in 2025, the Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The prosecution built its case primarily on extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence. Key claims included:

Confession to the Landlord (PW-1) – The accused allegedly told the landlord that Manda had died before leaving to inform her family.

Read Also:- SCAORA Submits Recommendations to SC on Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record and Senior Designation Process

Confession to Manda’s Brother (PW-3) – The accused reportedly admitted to assaulting Manda in the presence of other relatives.

Statements from PW-4 and PW-6 – These witnesses corroborated that Mahapatar had confessed in their presence.

Crime Scene Evidence – Broken bangles, scattered household items, and injuries on Manda’s body were presented as proof of a violent confrontation.

Defense Arguments

The defense strongly challenged the prosecution’s case, arguing that:

• Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and should not be relied upon without corroboration.
• There was no direct forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime.

Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Arjun Singh Rajput in Murder Case Over Unreliable Dying Declaration

• Witness statements were contradictory and inconsistent.
• The accused was in a confused state of mind, which raises doubts about the validity of his so-called confessions.

Supreme Court's Observations

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan critically examined the evidence and made the following key observations:

Weakness of Extra-Judicial Confessions: The court ruled that confessions made outside a legal framework are unreliable:

“An extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, true, and inspire confidence to be accepted as evidence.”

No Corroborating Evidence: Apart from the alleged confession, no forensic or direct evidence established Mahapatar’s guilt.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Woman Entitled to Maintenance from Second Husband Despite Legally Undissolved First Marriage

Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The court noted significant discrepancies in the statements of PW-3 and PW-6, particularly regarding what Mahapatar allegedly said.

No Forensic Link to the Accused: The police found no blood stains on Mahapatar’s clothing, and the alleged murder weapon was never recovered.

Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: The court reinforced the principle that mere suspicion is not enough for conviction:

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting Ramu Appa Mahapatar the benefit of doubt.

“Since the appellant is in detention, he shall be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.”